Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21
of distinguished responsibilities in both the reagan and george h. w. bush, and george w. bush administrations, first as special assistant to the president and deputy to the chief of staff, and in the white house as assistant to the president for intergovernmental affairs. his many diplomatic posts have included ambassador to the united nations offices in geneva, system secretary of state for international organization affairs, and most recently, as president george w. bush's special envoy to sudan. he is also a longtime member and i think now vice chairman of the board of directors of the international republican institute. so, we are very glad to welcome both rich and michele to this podium. brookings prides itself on being a nonpartisan think-tank and it is in that context that we are hosting this event today. our moderator is a guest scholar at brookings and former chief diplomatic correspondent for cbs and nbc news, former anchor of the nbc "meet the press" program, and also most recently of the haunting legacy. marvin kalb and it's my pleasure to hand over the podium to you, marvin, to c
carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w. bush. none of these presidents were treated like this, none of them were by either republicans or democrats. somehow this president is considered different. we have seen everyone from chief justice john roberts who was appointed by a republican president to the nonpartisan american bar association urging the senate to vote on qualified judicial nominees. they are able to administer justice for the american public. sadly, republicans insist on being the party of no. but the american people and the overburdened federal courts need qualified justices to administer justice in our federal courts, not the perpetuation of extended numerous vacancies. we extend the number of vacancies even as the population of this country increases. today, vacancies on the federal courts are more than two and a half times as many as they were on this day during the first term of president bush. today there are still 78 vacancies. there have been -- because of the delays caused by republicans, there has actually been an
george h.w. bush was president, when bill clinton was president, when george w. bush was president, and then look what it is. what is so different about this president that his judicial nominees are treated so differently than all the presidents before him, republicans or democrats alike? it shows the nominees had to wait before the senate, skyrocketed why 18 days for president bush's nominees to 132 days for president obama's. those interested in a tennessee nominee will remember how hard we had to work for almost ten months even though we had the strong support of senator alexander and senator corker to get senators to consider the nomination of a judge to the sixth circuit. republican senators tried to take credit for the senate having reached what they regard as their quota for circuit nominations this year, that they should remember the senate would not even have had an up-or-down vote on three of the five of them without the majority leader first having to file for cloture to overcome republican blocks. the senate has yet to vote on a single circuit court nominee nominated by
clinton handed president george w. bush a record surplus. so the only time in the last 30 years in which we actually had the budget in balance was after we raised taxes on those at the top, the very level we're talking about now. between 1993 and 2001, this country created an unprecedented number of jobs -- 22.7 million net -- and did so while benefiting everyone up and down the economic ladder. not every individual but every quartile. there was economic growth in every quartile. we witnessed a decrease in the number of americans in poverty and we saw the creations of more millionaires and billionaires than ever before. president clinton's deficit-reduction plan not only reduced the deficit as planned, it eliminated it entirely. so not only did we create all that prosperity, president clinton then handed off a record surplus. i think it needs to be said. he handed off a record surplus to incoming president george w. bush. in fact, when president bush took office, we were on track to completely pay off our national debt with $5 trillion of surpluses projected over the next ten years. in o
and expanded by president george w. bush, a conservative republican, and which includes scientists at nasa, e.p.a., the department of defense, the department of agriculture, the department of energy, the state department, the department of health, the department of transportation, commerce, and interior, what they have said -- and i quote -- "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced." end of quote. senator inhofe has said, global warming is a hoax, but the global change research program, which brings together many departments of the united states government, they say, and i quote, "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced." understand of quote. -- end of quote. mr. president, our national academy of sciences joined with academies in brazil, canada, china, france, germany, india, italy, japan, mexico, russia, south africa, and the united kingdom. they came together to say, and i quote, "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable, end of quote. senator inhofe, global warming is a hoax. academies of science all over the world state,
to the same policies of george w. bush. remember when george w. bush became president, we had surpluses as far as the eye could see. then he gave these tax breaks to the top 1%. and, by the way, this $160,000, that's the millionaire tax break. they want to give tax breaks to the multimillionaires, to the billionaires, to the multibillionaires. they put no cap on the tax cut whatsoever. you can earn $100 billion, they want to give you a tax break. and there's a cost. there's a cost to the treasury. there's a cost to the debt. there's a cost to the deficit. there's a cost to fairness. there is a cost to the middle class. so i think the american people have weighed in on this one, and they believe that to give a tax break to the first $250,000 of everybody's income is fair, because then the people above that can pay a little more, the same rates they paid when bill clinton was president, and we need to go back to those days when we created 23 million jobs and when we not only balanced the budget, but we created surpluses as far as the eye can see. the question is, madam president, who are you fig
served with: president ford, president carter, president reagan, president george h.w. bush, president clinton, president george w. bush. somehow we have a different standard for president obama. do they really want to establish this as being the standard? do they not think that someday there may be a republican president and know that that's the standard that they want? it would happen there. during the past five presidential election years, senate democrats have never denied an up-or-down vote to any circuit court nominee of a republican president who received bipartisan support in the judiciary committee. that's 20 years, five presidential election years. during the last 20 years only four circuit nominees reported the bipartisan support have been denied an up-or-down vote by the senate. all four were nominated by president clinton and blocked by senate republicans. this entire year the senate has yet to vote on a single circuit court nominee who was nominated by president obama this year. since 1980, the only presidential election year in which there were no circuit nominees confir
with precision what the effect of advertising is. and the person who bought george w. bush's ads in 2000 always used to say with a big smile on his face that it was the most efficient ad buy in history in florida. he didn't waste a single dollar on florida. now, obviously, with a big smile on his face and joking. what he meant was a little too close for comfort for the bush people, but if you're looking at it as a complete economic efficiency, they didn't waste any money in florida because they won by 530 votes, whatever it was. anything they would have spent more than that would be a waste. but they, obviously, don't think like that. they're obviously not trying to get efficiency in that particular way. but advertising very, very much matters at the margin. i mean, we look at the 2000 election, phenomenally close. the 2004 election, also, phenomenally close. 70,000 votes go the other way in ohio, and we're talking about president john kerry. 2002, big republican victory taking back the u.s. senate, very narrow victories in minnesota and missouri. 2006, 2008, 2010, swing elections, and advertis
for george w. bush. and i said, why? he said, i trust him. now, a month later when americans cast their vote, i realized what had happened, which is that a lot of people were voting based on that. even though it may not have seemed obvious to us what their interests were, these people were thinking about this in a more fundamental way. and it reminded me that when you go and you talk to voters, all they want to know is you're going to speak to them and you're going to speak for them, and whoever wins this election is going to be the one that makes that case the best. we occasionally onthe "newshour" go out around the country and do spotlight cities where we go to towns and we sit people down and ask them to talk to each other. you know, we live in a world of silo politics where people watch one cable network or the other, and they only listen to people they already agree with. we get them all in one room. and in this case we were in the middle of the health care debate, and we were in tampa, florida, and there were people arguing with each other about what their meaning and understanding of
. but george w. bush was my president and i never voted for him. but ronald reagan was my president. and i degreed with him most of him but george h. w. bush was my president. i'm saddened by the fact that we've reach the point we don't have one president who represents all of us. i think we should get beyond that kind of rhetoric and this bill to talk about what matters in this country which is jobs, as you said. >> being amazed of how much congressman fox and i have in common. actually, i have been reading 1984 rather recently. i think the thing that bhotterses me about what she said is the notion of freedom, in other words my idea of freedom is freedom of speech, freedom of religious. it's not the freedom not to have health care. and the problem is, i really look at it from a responsibility point of view, which is what the republicans often talk about. in other words, it's not fair if you will, that people not take responsibility for their own lives. and why should some of us be paying these large premiums and bills for people who don't decide to have health care? and i also, health ins
security who served under president george w. bush, agree. they and many other officials have joined current secretary of homeland security, janet nap, the current -- janet napolitano, and keith alexander and others in warning as follows "the cyber threat is imminent to america. it poses as serious a challenge to our national security as the introduction of nuclear weapons in the global debate 60 years ago." the experts are sounding the alarm, calling us to take action now. to prevent a catastrophic cyber attack that could cripple our nation's economy, cause widespread loss of life, sadly, send our economy into free fall. when the cybersecurity act of 2012 comes up for a vote the senate will have an opportunity to take action on this critical bill that will enhance our national security. in light of these warnings from the experts, the least we can do in the senate is to vote to open the debate on this critically important bill. i want thank its sponsors, senator lieberman, chairman of the committee, senator collins, the ranking member, senator feinstein on the intelligence committee
to say you know, george w. bush had when he launched the search and where his most inner circle everyone except him would -- it but i don't think he will. i think the only way the narrative changes is if the fall of assad does not happen and then what you do see is not 20,000 people dead but 100,000 people dead. i think every 10,000 increments of slaughter you might say diminishes that narrative. so i don't know where that line is where suddenly that is not a narrative that you want to start out any more. but i suspect you know, somewhere between 10,200,000 people today. so wherever that line is, think that is where you are no longer going to use it. now you could still use the argument and you hear that argument more often on the republican side which is just sort of let them all slaughter each other, and without a great consideration of the strategic calculations in the middle east because it's sort of like the middle east, just go away. so, i think that is also a pretty powerful again, i would emphasize -- emphasize if you had to write now put your finger on something that would chang
.c., and then was assistant attorney general for national securit. s. mleref osffdiretor rert ths resident george w. bush's homeland security adviser. he received his undergraduate degree from the university of virginia and his law degree from the university of california at berkeley. profsoof er sosstan ivtyoo l. before coming to george mason, sales was deputy assistant secretary for policy development in the u.s. department of homeland security. he previously served as counsel and senior counsel in the ofce ealpolic at u rtut. he was the john m. olin llow at georgetown university law center in 2005-2006. come 2003-2005, he practiced at the washington, d.c. law rmo wiley d essaclfoe honorable david d. sentelle of the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. he received his undergraduate degree from miami university and his jdfrom do. colonel ken alla is a mmento o forign pol d ctyises fomore than a decade he was a featured military analyst on nbc news, msnbc and cnbc. in 2006, he joned the faculty of unirsity of exs n nia eciv deinsnior lecturer and management. his military career included overseas
a fair share. we will find out. this is not a new story. in 2001, when president george w. bush decided to spend a large portion of the surpluses he inherited from president clinton to cut tax rates across the board, many democrats opposed it because the tax cuts were unfairly waited towards the highest-income americans. as a result of this opposition, republicans were forced to set the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010. as 2010 drew to a close, president obama and many democrats in congress, including myself, supported extending the tax cuts for middle-class families but letting the lower rates on income above $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a family revert to the clinton-era levels, as was scheduled. senate republicans filibustered that effort, refusing to allow the middle class tax cut without a tax cut for america's wealthiest. not wanting tax rates to go up on middle-class families still struggling during the economy. the president and senate democrats reluctantly agreed to extend all of the tax cuts through this year. which brings us to now. once again these tax ra
inaghananb hereesberh caalfo04t mornt n20t george w. bush administration had used drums to a lodge airborne attacks on suspected terrorists and paxton. when you mbn assoatok i09 nr r thdulium m e ainstonus as a matter of policy to officially acknowledge the cia's drone attacks. but in the days following a big t, ynedom a an of videeo ike a rainbow, remarkable atmospheric happening. these drone attacks have become the centerpiece of obama's recalibrationo ma' di c t hmvif w e aditioh ten li aes in shamsi. quote, tht base is neither but vacated nor been vacad, was the anonymous but official word from washington. with a mexican sndf i chn. 'swe abtrd vi llemi wthior a non-peace. you forget about, you know, u whoudiutl t'ei. anyway, this tiny forgotten strip of land that held the airbase in shamsi, it turned ut it did not actually belogto st tohheni sige v at0eareleri ocan a rihi between the two countries. baluchistan, aside from being full of spectacular garden of the natural wonders and this is most be among the most o the pl o, ase t fewn rudste bud b iig em among hunters from the united
in this country from the last two administrations, the george w. bush administration, the barack obama administration have warned as if in a single voice we're already facing the equivalent of a digital pearl harbor or 9/11 if we don't shore up and defend our exposed cyber flanks. same is true of the impact of our vulnerability in cyberspace to cyber theft. general keith alexander the head of the defense department cyber command and the national security agency made a speech a week or two ago in which he estimated that more than a trillion dollars has been stolen over cyberspace from america. he called it the largest transz every of -- transfer of wealth in history. that results from moving money at a bank -- out of bank accounts a lot of us never hear because the banks feel it's embarrassing, theft of industrial secrets to other countries that then build from those industrial secrets and create the jobs in their countries that our companies wanted to create here. so there's a unified position among national security leaders apart from which administration they served we need this legi
/ dirimitiga a a imatonhit qu a smr og esorti vith esid oe i think that during the george w. bush years there was an emphasis on combatin relious discrimination. d i y ba erf dimion, anti-arab, anti-muslim discrimination was a part of the. i think one of the things that we've seen with this ministration is shift into cod e mhay wee r gswo deal with. anso i would like to see more done. now, there is one thing that i thini was positive that has come out of the obama mitrn. es rtls21, h rslvt a isy qio t whether groups like jews several rights protection in univerty by e u. anidacisimio th sounds like discrimination. but if that you came in and said d ti-sitis t swoue e gh aer sse rio ha t i d udib] ayt us acting president obama should be credited with having done somethingositive on that >> thank you. adsihi aaem nogong with an american child born today happens to be a muslim or an arab, who wants growp d beco pde thasms hahahhutso ouofice.hea given the fact that 62% of americans have never met a muslim, and al this islaphia i thinkt'sre ffto prsi obato y iwe msi o ? i' an er. and our
in'st g o re cieen repo. heoio h argument that romney's foreign policy is just a return to george w. bush. osha's popularity has increased uptake of thereetlbt e obwirge ria. ssmempad sure world and he's made it more secure. and that romney is abdicating pretty much the same policies as orge.uh ftr tpa has inck,toq tus rcnd iee ore direct line of attk that was tried already was romney did make some statement saying that he didn't think shtod eor spenminsdos herz am sme huli pakistan, and after bin laden took place during the 2008 campaign. so obama will m ha tow ry ot h to. d tn y kete agen y some ways is trapped in the past, maybe making youth versus someona little bit olde eystatenat ui sohiaske al eoin fgnic tahm idi l ps. ar control agreement had a very strong bipartisan suport, foren cyabmeot of the rbn kifsurpsemn dow a cutry of interest with russia? of course not to our we rife to some degree? sure. are ups about russia's cric tncofe? nu oeol ? russia being in any, every turn to the cold war? i think most people might see that as eing somewhat out of rega.oneon th e t sh
as anthony kennedy appointed by president george h.w. bush wrote the opinion for the court and listen to what he said: a principal feature of the removal system is exercised by immigration officials. discretion is the enforcement of immigration law embracing human concerns, unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who committed a serious crime, so said justice kennedy. the administration's policy isn't just legal. it's realistic and it's smart. today there are millions of undocumented immigrants in the united states. it is physically, literally impossible to deport them. so the department of homeland security has to decide priorities. should the highest priority be to deport those who are most dangerous to the united states? i think even the senator from iowa would have to concede that point. and the obama administration has made that their priority. senator grassley calls the administration's deportation policy -- quote -- "an amnesty." well, senator grassley, that's just not right. the dream act students will
that was put into law in 1992 when president george h.w. bush was in office and when milton friedman was only 80 years old. the wind production tax credit was a temporary tax break, taxpayer in 1992 to encourage wind power. we give wind developers a 2.2-cent credit for every -- cents for every kilowatt-hour of wind electricity produced. and now it's about to expire at the end of the year. it needs to be extended again, the developers say. nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. just one more time, they tell us, but it's an argument like this that's got us into the fiscal mess that we have as a nation. the united states of america, according to the joint tax committees, is spending $14 billion on subsidizing giant wind turbines over a five-year period, $6 billion of it is this production tax credit. that's why i am so pleased to see governor romney support the idea of more responsibility in our spending. we spend too much money in washington that we do not have, and it has to stop. there are many reasons we don't need this particular provision of the tax code. first, we can'
it wasn't always this way. president reagan raised taxes 11 times. president george h.w. bush, famously raised taxes to rein in the deficit. this really shouldn't be controversial. outside of today's republican party, it isn't because if you believe that the deficit and debt aren't major problems that need to be addressed as democrats do, and as pubs -- republicans claim to you can't simply ignore revenues at a time at 15.4% of gdp, they are the lowest in 60 years. poll after poll has shown the american people overwhelmingly want to reduce the deficit with a combination of cuts and revenue. every single bipartisan group that has made progress in the area from simpson-bowles to domenici rivlin and others were able to come together because their plans were balanced. and let's be clear. we do not want to increase revenue for the sake of increasing revenue. of course not. but as a nation, we need to pay for the services and programs the american people want. we need to rein in the deficit and debt and we need to do it in a responsible way. democrats understand this. and congressional republ
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21